On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think this should be a decision done when creating a table, just like
> > TEMP tables. So you always know if a certain table is or is not
> > safe/replicated/recoverable.
> > This has also the advantage of requiring no changes to actual COPY and
> > INSERT commands.
>
> That doesn't seem right to me; the scenario I envision is that you are
> willing to do the initial data loading over again (since you presumably
> still have the source data available). But once you've got it loaded
> you want full protection.
Yes, thats the scenario.
Believe me, I prefer less code, but I think general feeling now is that
we must provide a data safe solution to the performance challenge.
> Perhaps it could work to use an ALTER TABLE command to flip the state.
> But I'm not really seeing the point compared to treating it as a COPY
> option. I do not believe that anyone needs this to work on individual
> INSERT commands --- if you are after max speed, why aren't you using
> COPY? And treating it as an ALTER property opens the possibility of
> forgetting to ALTER the table back to normal behavior, which would be
> a foot-gun of large caliber indeed :-(
Oh no, not the foot gun again. I surrender.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
